Lechmere validity

[Elamarna]

thanks el

so then the only thing we have on record of paul saying he spoke himself (none of this "we" stuff)directly to Mizen is his highly boastful Lloyds article-where he tries to act the hero and belittle the police- the subsequent reports are obviously cribbing from the Lloyds article.

and given his apparent negative attitude towards the police its no wonder hes not going to contradict Lech.

Correct, that is all we have, of course we do not know exactly what Paul said on the 17th, its not reported in any detail, that would have helped immensely.

If we are going to say that Lechmere's statement should be viewed as cribbing from the Lloyds article, that is not exactly unbiased. That view says that Lechmere is not telling the truth no matter what; And indeed it is obviously not cribbing in my opinion, has it chances the roles protagonists in the events.


If we simply start from a position of rejected Lechmere and accepting Mizen, then we are doing the events a disservice IMHO.
All 3 of the statements should be looked at, initially, with an assumption of truth, and tested against what evidence there is.

Mizen is backed only by Himself on what was said; but he is backed that he did continue at least, one last knock up.

Paul is Backed by Lechmere and Lechmere by Paul.

To me it is clear, unless it can be shown that BOTH Carmen BOTH lied,we should conclude, that at the very least, MIzen, misunderstood what he was told.



Steve

[Fisherman]

That's what I was afraid of. We disagree, Fish, but I feel no need to argue about it.

Rather than taking a mere five seconds, I re-read the whole of the inquest testimony this morning, up to the point where Cross is questioned by the jury.

The reason I don't agree with your interpretation is that there was nothing in Cross's deposition that disagreed with Mizen's statement. There was no real 'contradiction,' he just merely gave his version of finding the body and how he alerted Mizen to the body, without adding the somewhat unimportant detail that another constable was on the scene.

Why unimportant? Because Mizen had already testified that he had been alerted to this fact. There was nothing in Cross's statement that would have "jumped out" at the jury as an obviously lie or contradiction or mystery.

Yet, no sooner does Cross finish his deposition, then the Coroner immediately jumps in:

Replying to the coroner, witness denied having seen Police-constable Neil in Buck's-row.

Boy, the Coroner wasted no time, did he? It certainly doesn't sound to me like the Coroner is doubting Cross's testimony; it sounds to me like the Coroner was waiting for an opening, having already heard the tale of Mizen pounding on doors.

And then, as a kicker, the Jury repeats the question! To me, the question, and the repeating of the question, makes little sense if their intention was to doubt Cross. But it makes a great deal of sense if they doubted Mizen.

But that is merely my interpretation and I gather this has been gone over before at great length, so I'll leave it at that. Have a good evening.

I do not agree with your, as you know. However, at the end of the day, it matters not who the coroner and jury believed. It all boils down to whether Lechmere lied to Mizen or not. That is the REAL issue.

We should also be aware of the fact that regardless what choice the jury made, it was quite likely a choice between believing Lechmere or believing Lechmere, for the simple reason that he was quite likely the inventor of BOTH stories.

Mizen finished a knocking-up errand he had already begun before setting off to Bucks Row, and that can only be interpreted in one way, since we know how such an errand is begun - but the PC tapping on a window. The sensible thing to expect is that the reaction from inside that window was one of somebody coming to the window and letting the PC know that they were awake. It is no big thing at all, and Mizen - it should be remembered - was not ion any way criticized by anybody at all for it.

If there had been a keen interest on behalf of jury and coroner to criticize Mizen for not making a sprinter start to Bucks Row, I suggest that they would have asked him whether it was true that he kept on knocking people up and that would have been it. Whether Lechmere admitted to having falsely mentioned another PC is entirely unrelated to that.

Whichever, it remains that we HAVE a major contradiction in the two versions. It does not go away on account of how Mizen mentioned it before the carman commented on it, asked by a juryman. It remains.

[Fisherman]

Even though it's not going to change my views much (as Giles took his victims to remote places where he had all the time he wished for with his victims and Lechmere would not have had this luxury), thanks for sharing this example, Christer, much appreciated!

All the best,
Frank

My pleasure, Frank. My own thinking tells me that however much or little time Giles would have had, he would have seen them atoms moving anyway. And as he DID, he would be oblivious to the rest of the world, I believe, in a bubble as it were.

[Fisherman]

P.S. To be fair, Fish, another person could read the same testimony and conclude that the Coroner and the jury was concerned that Cross and Paul had bolted from Buck's Row before insuring that a constable had secured the scene. So I admit there is room for another interpretation. Which is why we theorists fight it out. Cheers.

There is not only room for it, there is a universe of space. Thumbs up for using both eyes, though!

[Patrick S]

thanks el

so then the only thing we have on record of paul saying he spoke himself (none of this "we" stuff)directly to Mizen is his highly boastful Lloyds article-where he tries to act the hero and belittle the police- the subsequent reports are obviously cribbing from the Lloyds article.

and given his apparent negative attitude towards the police its no wonder hes not going to contradict Lech.

Hi, Abby.

I've said this before. Being critical of the police is, to my way of thinking, at least, not the same as being anti-police, or even having a "negative attitude toward the police". Paul may have had negative overall feelings toward the police, he may not have. All I, or anyone, can say for certain is that he expressed negative feelings about Mizen's response to being told about Nichols' lying in Buck's Row: "he (Mizen) did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

Further, we know that he's critical of the police presence in and around Buck's Row on the night of the murder: "The woman was so cold that she must have been dead some time, and either she had been lying there, left to die, or she must have been murdered somewhere else and carried there. If she had been lying there long enough to get so cold as she was when I saw her, it shows that no policeman on the beat had been down there for a long time. If a policeman had been there he must have seen her, for she was plain enough to see." Now, we know that Cross corroborated Paul's description of Mizen's response: "in Baker's-row they met the last witness (Mizen), whom they informed that they had seen a woman lying in Buck's-row. Witness said, "She looks to me to be either dead or drunk; but for my part I think she is dead." The policeman said, "All right," and then walked on." I'd suggest that, based on the information we have, I don't think it can be said that Paul's criticisms of the Mizen are plainly unfair. Cross and Paul agree that Mizen said simply "alright", didn't take action or say anything to indicate he was taking action. Paul says he continued "calling the people up". Cross says he "walked on".

To me, his comments with respect to the police presence and how long Nichols must have been lying there are more harsh and perhaps unnecessary. But, I don't think that it can be said for certain that they weren't justified. I think it's quite possible that they were reflective of the views of many living in the East End at that time. We know that there had been, over the preceding few months, four attacks on women in and around the East End: Millwood in February. Wilson in March. Smith in April. Tabram only a few weeks previous on August 7. None of these attacks (three of which were fatal) had been solved. We know that the press had been critical of the police, lamenting their inability to bring the person or persons responsible to justice.

I think it's clear that there was criticism of the police leveled at the Nichols' inquest, as well. Thain was questioned by the Jury about the retrieval of his cape at the slaughterhouse and whether he had told Tomkins about the murder. Thain said he did not : "When I went to the horse-slaughterer's for my cape I did not say that I was going to fetch a doctor, as a murder had been committed". Tomkins, also responding to a questions from a juryman, said otherwise: "What made the constable come and tell you about the murder? - He called for his cape.").

We also know that the questions with respect to what Mizen was told came from the jury, as well. Cross was asked by a juryman, "Did you tell Constable Mizen that another constable wanted him in Buck's-row?" To which Cross replied, "No, because I did not see a policeman in Buck's-row."

What's clear is that members of the jury, despite this being a case in which a woman was murdered and mutilated, spent time and directed focus on how the police went about their business on the night of the murder.

I'm of the feeling that the primary reason Paul is considered as having had a notable anti-police bias is due to the theory proposing Lechmere as the killer of Nichols, Jack the Ripper, and a psychopath, because this enables Cross' exploitation of Paul's biases to escape detection (via the Mizen Scam, etc.), even though he couldn't have known he had them.

My thoughts. Thanks.

[Fisherman]

For what they're worth, my responses above bold. I found this post quite bizarre. I won't respond to any further imagined persecution accusations and I'm finished giving you praise and compliments because you fish for them (no pun intended). I've given them genuinely in the past but it's quickly forgotten and you seem to require them far more frequently than I'm inclined to give them. But, if I have something I wish to add to these boards, I'll do so. These types of strange, juvenile rants not withstanding. Best wishes, Christer.

Hi Patrick!

I have been away for a day, that I spent fishing with old friends. Good friends. Trustworthy, kind, emphatic old friends. You may know the feeling?

I now return to have my post to you called "bizarre" and to have it claimed that I "persecute" you...?! That is coming to an end, I promise.

I did a lot of thinking yesterday, and I have arrived at a course of action.

You have recently misrepresented what I have said, time and time again. You have put words in my mouth. It has seemingly all had the aim to make me look stupid or wrong - or, preferably, both.
You persist in calling the Mizen scam "laughable - and you are entirely free to do so. These are public boards. It does, however, color my take on you.

Worst, you have decided to claim that I have "made up" the Mizen scam.

A little semantic lesson: Something that can be accused of having been made up is something that has been presented as a fact. A theory, ergo a suggestion, can never have been "made up" as such.
Let me enlighten you further on the issue:
If I say that Lechmere was the killer, then you can claim (but not prove) that I made it up.
If I suggest that he was probably the killer, then you cannot claim that I have made something up.

At the end of the day, it is a question of common decency - or, to be more precise, its polar opposite. These are boards that have housed many a foul-mouthed poster, and one where people mock others with all kinds of justification, including none at all.

To "make something up" is a synonym for "to lie". I have found no other example out here where a poster claims that a theory that somebody has presented is something that has been made up. Hard criticism has been directed at many theories, with all kinds of justification, including, once again, none at all. But that is to be expected and as it should be - within reasonable limits. Theories must be put to the test. No problem there.

It is when posters claim, without justification, that the theories are made up and laughable that the line of decency is crossed, and with quite some margin too.

If you put this invention of yours to the test, you will probably find yourself a number of disciples, and I dare say that the names of them would not be any surprise at all. That's how it goes, there are always those who find personal joy in things like these, and so one cannot count on everybody being up to scratch in matters of common decency.

The majority of the posters out here would however - the way I see things - look very harshly on such antics. And not a single poster of the ones who conduct serious discussions out here would agree with you that the Mizen scam theory is something I have "made up" - it would be tantamount to compromising ones credibility beyond repair to make such accusations. Which is exactly how it should be - all sorts of vile and foul suggestions like this one need to be dealt with as the crap they are, simple as that. If you disagree, it matters not to me.

There is an example in our past where I decided not to discuss with you, and leave your posts unanswered. That was because of how I found you resorted to baseless accusations and falsities. However, I alway think people deserve a second chance, and you had that, asserting that you would play nice.

A third chance is something else. I very rarely award such things, and when I do, it is on account of how I think that the one given this chance has earned it. In your case, I can see no such thing, all I see is how you consciously choose to use a vocabulary meant to belittle and infect.

That is the bottom line, and the equation thus becomes an easy one for me - its strike three for you, and I will not answer any of your posts in the future. I will read them, of course, so that I can see whether you choose to misrepresent me furthermore and falsely claim things on my behalf, in which case I will deal with that as best as I can.

Our time as discussion partners is however over, and you are free to claim anything from how that reflects how I dare not debate with you to how I have misunderstood you capitally, should you wish to do so. Its a world full of opportunities, Patrick - but what we say and do is our legacy.

Have a wonderful life.

[Patrick S]

The name Cross never should have been seen as suspicious, not even by us now. Unless I am mistaken (what I have gleamed from reading this forum) is that Lechmere had been functioning professionally under the name Cross for several years and if the police had to, they would have likely been able to locate him under that name, so he was not really hiding with the name change.

Neither do I actually think he is anything more than unlucky; what I keep on about though is that he will always be a suspect because of the when and where of his arrival to this story.

At least fleshing out these candidates (Lechmere; Druitt; Kosminski; Bury; Etc.) has some validity to it when compared with the nonsensical conspiracy theories who always seem to involve someone famous. So I think we should put Lechmere/Cross through the ringer, it's more interesting than the Free Mason nonsense.

What I think needs closer examination is Lechmere behavior/action/possible observations while kneeling at the head of Polly's body. If he could see that she had been attacked then his comments to Mizen become very damning and make him very interesting to look at; if he couldn't really tell she had been attacked then his comments to Mizen read to me as someone just avoiding involvement.

Me thinks we are focusing in the wrong direction, what happened between Lechmere and Paul, while leaning over the Polly's body would tell us more than Lechmere's behavior with Mizen.

Hi, APerno,

I don't disagree with much you've written here.

I'd say simply that I think that it's clear, based on what we know, that Paul was close enough to touch Nichols but did not notice her injuries or blood: "I laid hold of her wrist and found that she was dead and the hands cold. It was too dark to see the blood about her". We can discern this statement is likely true since Paul also did not tell Mizen he'd seen her injuries, blood, etc. Further corroboration comes from Neil. He testified, "It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row." He was able to discern that "deceased was lying lengthways along the street, her left hand touching the gate." But doesn't indicate he saw her injuries until he mentions his lamp: "I examined the body by the aid of my lamp, and noticed blood oozing from a wound in the throat. She was lying on her back, with her clothes disarranged."

So, at least in my view, a close examination of what we know Paul and Neil were able to observe in Buck's Row seems to make it extremely likely that Cross could not see she was attacked by virtue of him seeing her injuries when Paul and Neil couldn't (without the aid of a lamp).

Thanks.

[Fisherman]

Firstly no one is playing any Games.
That a major player in the Lechmere theory , uses an alternative name, like Lechmere himself cannot be ignored.
However nothing was said that was "distasteful".

If that means you will not talk to me, I am heartbroken.

How truly selective of you. Indeed Paul's comments at the inquest are limited, all we have is reporting in the 3rd person, no 1st person or verbatim accounts.
IT SEEMS he is not asked for his account of the meeting at all. Odd that, given the Lloyds account.

Mizen ignores Paul's input not because it is insignificant, but probably because it is the reason for Mizen's version of events in the first place.

Of course Lechmere also says Paul spoke to Mizen too , but let's just ignore that because it does not fit the narrative we wish to portray.

You are not interpreting the sources, rather what we have is speculative theorizing, fuelled by bias and a need to sustain the theory conrary to the sources.

The posts display a truly shameful approach to serious historical research.

Steve

You spelt shameful correctly. I wasn't expecting that.

Can you tell me how it is NOT shameful to claim that it is "probable" that Mizen omitted to say that Paul spoke to him?

Maybe it is shameful when I suggest one solution to things but not when you suggest another, is that it?

[Fisherman]

Earlier, you said that my arguement that they left together, and went looking for a PC together, meant they were together, and you're reply was "Do we really know that neither man swiftly ducked into an adjacent street to check for a PC, Jeff? " as suggesting a counter example. I then presented my reasons for not thinking that, to which you then replied "In your reply to me you put "Right, Jeff! I first note that you - of course - cannot rule out that one of the carmen DID duck into an adjacent street. You just find it unlikely. Good! We agree. On both counts."

Now, your 2nd reply indicates that you believe this to be possible. You say I cannot rule it out, and you agree that you cannot either. I had, of course, ruled it out and you misread my reply, but that notwithstanding, above you are saying you believe thy did - or at least you believe that is possible. So, again, provide details of this belief. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm responding to what you are saying. If you don't believe these things, but actually agree with my arguement that there is no evidence of such things, then why make it sound like you are presenting an alternative without clarifying that you don't actually believe it?

The long and the short of things is that we cannot tell how close the carmen were, because it is never laid down anywhere. Thinking that the word "together" allows for measuring it is wrong.



Again, I quote you from above:
"Imagine that the two turned the Bakers Row corner jointly. Imagine that they were talking as they did. Imagine that Mizen noticed them: "There's two guys walking to work together and chatting as they go". Imagine that Lechmere veered off as the only person to speak to Mizen (extremely well reinforced by how Mizen says that one man, not two men, spoke to him). Imagine that Mizen was at the northern side of the corner of Hanbury Street and Bakers Row, and that Paul rounded that corner on the southern side while Lechmere went up to Mizen and spoke to him. Further imagine that the conversation took all of ten seconds , and that Lechmere then joined up with Paul again.
If that was so, why would not Mizen answer the question "there was another man in company with Cross?" with a "Yes"...? What were his alternatives? To say that they were not in company at the very instance when Lechmere spoke to him?"

You describe, with perfect clarity, the two arriving together at PC Mizen. If you don't believe they did, stop saying you do.

No, I describe Tham as turning the corner at Bakers Row in a manner that allowed for Mizen to interpret them as companions. I specifically said that Lechmere VEERED off to speak to Mizen in my scenario. How does that turn into me having described both men arriving at Mizen together...?


You don't seem to have a consistent take on things. In one reply you say you believe there is some possibility of side trips, and you describe Cross/Lechmere and Paul arriving and meeting PC Mizen together, but when I ask about your beliefs, you next reply says you never said these things.

I'm asking you direct questions on these beliefs to try and understand what it is you do believe, but you won't do that. I'm left to conclude that you believe nothing and everything.

I have been very clear about what I believe. I believe that Paul may have been out of earshot as Lechmere spoke to Mizen and I believe that it is folly to think that we may conclude that the carmen must have been in close company throughout. Exactly how they arrived in Bakers Row miswritten int ehstars, exactly how they walked through Bucks Row is written in the stars, and thinking that we can determine these matters is bonkers.

I do find that remarkable, if in fact you do still believe it. I'm surprised you didn't deny that as well.

Basically, Fisherman, we both know you believe Paul spoke to PC Mizen, so we both know that PC Mizen's "a man" statement cannot be interpreted as PC Mizen only talking to Lechmere/Cross. We both know that because of how strongly you push Paul's Lloyd's article where you've mined the word exactly, and use that when arguing about the time line. And that time line gets really messed up for you if you starting including side trips between the body and PC Mizen, which for some reason you believe may be possible (as per your statement above - you can't rule it out). Well, if they did, your arguements about how long it took them to get from Nichols to PC Mizen needs to account for this possibility and you can't. You also know that if PC Mizen is shown, yet again, to be the less accurate, other aspects of your theory get weakened.

Hence, you won't answer my questions on those points, because you aren't interested in making your ideas clear to others. You use a form of debate and discussion that relies upon smoke and mirrors, you confuse and distract, because when presented clearly it all falls down.

- Jeff

WHAT??? I do not think that Paul spoke to Mizen at all!

The idea that one must accept all or nothing in a source is stupidity. All information must always be taken on its own and evaluated, and that will sometimes mean that a source can be believed on some matters and disbelieved in others. It is not rocket science. The thought that it would be intellectually dishonest not to gulp down the bad with the good is uncritical balderdash.

See the bold above.

[Fisherman]

Jeff,

I think that post gives a very fair analysis of what may have occurred.

There is however one slight mistake, Paul Does Not specifically say in his Testimony that he spoke to Mizen, he is reported in the accounts has talking in the plural, "we" and "they". Unfortunately there are no verbatim reports of his testimony.

However, he does specifically say he did speak to Mizen in the Lloyds article, which I constantly argue should only be accepted, when it is corroborated by either Lechmere or Mizen, and here it is corroborated by Lechmere, in his inquests Testimony.

It is therefore clear that both Carmen are claiming that both of them spoke to Mizen, to counter this one requires more than Mizen, simply not mentioning any interaction with Paul, he does not specifically say Paul does not talk, such must be noted.

To argue that Paul must be out of earshot, is speculation at best, with the sole objective of making the "SCAM" work.

While agreeing with the basic idea, of why Mizen may have reacted the way he did, not realizing it was an emergency until after the event, I propose a further twist in my upcoming work, one which does not make Mizen a bad man or bad Police officer, just someone trying to protect himself.

Steve

And let's not admit that if Lechmere read the Lloyds article, then he would know exactly what Paul had said in it and thus be able to lie from that perspective. Let's instead allow Lechmere as CORROBORATION for Pauls Lloyds article, in spite of how it is directly contradicted by a PC, and let's dub him a liar instead.

That is yr source evaluation technique, not mine.,

It is your stance, not mine.

You are welcome to both, since I would not touch them with a pair of pliers myself.

[Fisherman]

I still don't see how this scam is supposed to work. Presumably, Lechmere hoodwinked Mizen because he didn't want to be searched or questioned by the police, otherwise they might find the murder weapon/blood stains or discover who he was. Therefore, Mizen is led to believe they've already been cleared and lets them on their merry way.

First of all, if Lechmere HAD still been carrying a knife or had any stains on him, I seriously doubt he would've stopped to approach Paul and take him to find a PC in the first place. He would've done a bunk, or agreed to split up and make his escape. Doesn't make sense. That's notwithstanding the fact for a man wishing to conceal his identity, he voluntarily attended the inquest and provided his name, address and place of business.

So he would have run?

Now, WHERE have I heard that before...?

[Fisherman]

It's a case built on half-truths and faulty suppositions. It's no different than 99% of the suspect-based theories, only Lechmere has the advantage of being at the scene of the crime. The discrepancies regarding 'Cross' and the "Mizen Scam" have been totally overblown, as they need to be to construct an argument for Lechmere's guilt. Cross was his stepfather's surname, he may have used it in a formal capacity (see the incident in 1876), and it's worthless to lie about your surname and nothing else. Mizen was told he was needed in Buck's Row. When he found PC Neil at the scene, in hindsight he believed Lechmere had told him he was wanted by another policeman. A perfectly rational, human explanation that doesn't assume any dishonesty on the part of Lechmere or Mizen.

What is out you call "half-truth", Harry? I note that you like that term. Please expand!

[Fisherman]

Where would the scam be if Mizen had arrived at the body before Neil?

It would have had Lechmere past the police with all the time in the world to get rid of the murder weapon and clean up, Joshua. To be frank, I suspect that is where Lechmere expected to find himself as he spoke to Mizen; reasonably he could not be sure that Neil would be in place. It was nevertheless the best option he had at that stage. And he would have had the same exit door open at the inquest - just deny what Mizen says and nobody can prove anything. That was exactly what he did if he was the killer, and to great effect too.

[Fisherman]

Me a wet blanket

If you argued this all out and conclude that Lechmere lied to Mizen (and said there was a PC on Buck Row,) you don't gain much. Lechmere's entire motivation may have been nothing more than a simple blow off, making sure PC Mizen doesn't say "show me"?

Maybe he actually just wanted to go to work.

And then denying it at inquest really doesn't amount to much; his alternative would have been to tell the truth: "I lied because I didn't want to get involved."

Concluding Lechmere lied doesn't really mean too much; but finding him next to the body never goes away.

The possible lie is something that carries a lot of suspicion. And we can see that Mizen acted as if he HAD been lied to - he did apparently not challenge what Neil said on the first inquest day, meaning that is seems Mizen was convinced that a PC, not the carmen, was the finder.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, even after the two of them left, they apparently weren't even sure if she was dead or just passed out, so they clearly didn't realize she had been murdered even when they left.

- Jeff

If, that is ...